[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: How stable is WINE?

In my opinion WINE isnt all its cracked up to be, but better than it has
been in the past.  If you want to run windows apps in linux, install vmware
(www.vmware.com).  It runs VERY fast depending on how much virtual ram you
can afford to allocate.  I use 128mb for my virtual machines.  Ive even had
execellent results with fullscreen windows media player under vmware.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Copeland" <fjc@wossname.apana.org.au>
To: <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: How stable is WINE?

> Cameron Matheson wrote:
> >I'm waiting for the new Debian to come out, and I need some information
> >about WINE.  In Potato, how stable is WINE?
> In my experience the wine currently in potato is as stable as any version
> wine I've used, and better than most. However, it is classified as alpha
> software for a very good reason. It comes nowhere near running all windows
> software. Each monthly snapshot improves some aspects but often breaks
> something that worked previously; very much a two steps forward one step
> back process.
> >Does it run better than windoze?  Also, What's the speed like, is it as
> >fast as the app would run in windoze?
> No and no. If it works at all with a given application then it works well
> enough, but you may have to work around an annoying bug or two (like
> shift-clicking the mouse occasionally freezing the app or even crashing
> Speed is sufficient considering the source is full of debugging code and
> optimised in any way.
> If you are looking for a general replacement for windows that runs
> windows runs then expect to be disappointed. If you have a specific
> application you need to use then the only way to find out if it will run
> under wine is to try it. If you have trouble then ask for help on
> <news:comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine>.
> Frank
> --
> Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org <

Reply to: